HDMI v. The Rest

[Johnno]

We have a Acer projector that is to be installed about 75ft (25m) from its sources, which will be a PC, a Denon DVD player and a Sky box. Source switching will be done at the projector via an RS232 link from an Ikon AVS wall panel.

 

The PC will be connected by VGA; the Sky box has a SCART output and will take the Composite input; the DVD player can use either HDMI, S-video or Component.

 

The difference in cabling cost between HDMI and the other two is about £100 to £5. Is there likely to be an observable difference in the image quality to make HDMI worthwhile? Budget will cover whatever I choose but if it ain't gonna be seen I'd rather spend the money elsewhere.

[peternewman]

If its just a DVD player, its not HD, so the HDMI doesn't gain anything, go for Component then S-Video in that order. For futureproofing however, choices may change, but running a bit of Cat 5 can probably cover that side of things.

[back_ache]

a bit of Cat 5 can probably cover that side of things.

 

the only thing I would add is currently a lot of the decent hdmi - twisted pair converters want two runs of cat6, so for future proofing I currently put that in

[Nick Mawer]

Kramer PT-571 and PT-572 use only a single cable http://www.kramerelectronics.co.uk/product...el.asp?pid=1762

 

As for the OP - if he doesn't want to go to the expense of a tx and rx pair then component would be a good bet.

[sleepytom]

25m is not a very long cable run. I can't see why anyone would use Cat5 over such a short distance.

VGA, Component, S, Composite will all go well over 25m without any issue.

HDMI is on the edge - it might work with a booster if you run it as SD.

 

The Kramer boxes linked above cost more than the projector! Not a sensible way to spend the budget IMHO.

[Nick Mawer]

25m is not a very long cable run. I can't see why anyone would use Cat5 over such a short distance.

VGA, Component, S, Composite will all go well over 25m without any issue.

HDMI is on the edge - it might work with a booster if you run it as SD.

 

The Kramer boxes linked above cost more than the projector! Not a sensible way to spend the budget IMHO.

 

Hi Tom, as I said, component would be fine - my post was really in response to the post immediately above mine which said that you needed 2 CAT 5 to run HDMI which as several manufacturers would tell you - is no longer true.

 

You make an interesting point about relative cost, but this is seldom the only factor in an installation, is it? Customer expectation, convenience and practicality are all important factors.

[sleepytom]

Sure - but "Acer Projector" would indicate this install is being done on a tight budget.

 

Possibly from the end users point of view having a lower cost projector and more budget spent on neat cabling and switching is a sensible way to go. I'm still no fan of cat5 though - in much bigger installs it has its place but for such short runs its unnecessary and does nothing to improve the reliability of the install.

 

It's also worth noting that these "cat5" senders often need better cable than standard cat5, often this cable is many times more expensive than standard computer networking cable. I've seen installs go badly over budget because someone thought it didn't matter and put cheap cable in, then had to replace it with the proper cable.

[Johnno]

Thanks for your replies.

 

Budget was max £2k to install Sky in our school hall. The new projector wasn't included in this as the old projector's lamp had blown and I managed to get a new projector instead of a replacement lamp for an 8-year old projector. The budget also covers the audio bits I'll need and the biggest expense (£750) which was for installation of a rack cabinet to house everything securely.

 

VGA is already installed for PC connection (commonest use), and I was going to put in the other cabling for the Sky box and for a DVD player and switch them either remotely at the projector, or via a local switch box of some sort.